(1.) THREE captioned appeals have been filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. and three by Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as the ,,BCCI) against the judgment and decree dated 8th November, 2012 passed in three suits; being CS(OS) No.2722/2012, 2780/2012 & 3232/2012 filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. against the respondents which included BCCI as a common defendant in all the suits; being defendant No.3 in CS(OS) No.2722/2012 and defendant No.2 in CS(OS) Nos.2780/2012 & 3232/2012.
(2.) SUITS filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. have been dismissed subject to the observations made in para 25 of the impugned decision dated November 08, 2012, which grant a limited injunction. Pithily stated, subject matter of the suits was the same i.e. a claim by Star India Pvt. Ltd. under an agreement entered into between it and BCCI and the complaint was that the activities of the contesting defendants transmitting match updates through MMS and SMS; alleging that the same were eating into the revenue of the plaintiff.
(3.) CS (OS) No.2722/2012 was the first suit filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. impleading Piyush Agarwal and Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. as defendants No.1 and 2, against whom relief of injunction and damages was claimed. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was impleaded as a defendant No.3 but without any relief claimed against said defendants for the reason the plaintiff was claiming a right under an agreement with defendant No.3. An application for interim injunction was filed along with the suit. The suit along with the interim application was listed for admission before the learned Single Judge on 7th September, 2012 on which date defendants No.1 & 2 appeared before the learned Single Judge and as recorded in the order-sheet accepted summons in the suit and notice in the interim application and vehemently opposed grant of any ad-interim injunction. Granting time to file written statements it was directed that the defendants would deposit Rs.15 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court. The suit and the interim application were adjourned for September 25, 2012, expressly recording that on said date the application for interim injunction would be heard. It was directed that the plaintiff shall produce the original contract on the next date.